The trouble I have with this quite common argument is that it is A) beside the point and B) childish. Just because men are treated badly often and that women display bad behavior often, the point here is a pretty specific type of treatment by men toward women that is unarguably bad behavior. The mature position stays focused on that because that is the priority right now, because it is severe and we are being asked to look at it.

How is it 'beside the point', I was specifically adressing the comment in GP

> delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised

If we don't do that then wouldn't the obvious question be "why have women accomplished so little compared to men?".

You comment perfectly illustrates that point

> the point here is a pretty specific type of treatment by men toward women that is unarguably bad behavior.

You are saying "women as vulnerable or marginalised" when GP comment is saying we shouldn't do that. I was logically explaining why its not possible to do that.

Also, quite rude of you to call me immature and childish and implying that I am condoning 'unarguably bad behavior'.

> "why have women accomplished so little compared to men?"

You seem to assume that is the case, but maybe the answer is that you do not value or notice the accomplishments of women? The Nobel prizes honor one very specific kind of achievement, one that many (not all) women do not particularly strive for. You don't tend to get a Nobel as a pediatrician, but society needs pediatricians anyway.

The gender wage gap is mostly due to jobs dominated by women paying less on average, i.e. women are putting up with smaller rewards and less recognition. You can see this as a vulnerability (since it enables exploitation) or as commendable altruism.

Let's also not forget the huge amount of work women do successfully for our society that is unrewarded and unpaid.

> The Nobel prizes honor one very specific kind of achievement, one that many (not all) women do not particularly strive for.

This is gender essentialism, to be believe that women have some specific type of preferences that men don't. This particular pernicious form of misogyny much much more harmful than overt sexism.

Would you please not take HN threads on generic ideological tangents? Nothing new can ever come of them, and they reliably degrade discussion into name-calling, complaints, and ever more generic statements. As demonstrated below.

ok noted, I understand what you mean. Will keep in that in mind in future. I can't delete my posts now, pls delete/detach if possible.

>[...]despite decades of preferential treatment, despite women being educated in number much higher than men.

Decades isn't that long a time to overturn social structures that have existed for centuries.

> 1. Admit the mistake in the feminist theory ( One is not born but becomes a woman).

Feminists never made this mistake. It's literally the premise of one of the canonical Feminist texts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex#Volume_Two

Yea I was quoting Simone DB, but I am not quite sure what you are trying to say.

How could you have been quoting Simone de Beauvoir and then positing that her supposition is a "mistake" made by Feminists? Seems paradoxical on its face?